Loading...
06/11/2001 - BUDGET - 4714:i William W. Burns M E M O R A N D ll M City Manager CffY OF FRIDLEY Memo to: The Mayor and Council �.�• From: William W. Burns, City Manager � Subject: Additional Budget Information Date: June 7, Z001 Here are five miscellaneous items that should contribute to your discussion of the budget on Monday night: 1. 'Year 2000 Variance Numbers. This tells you how much actual revenues and expenditures for last year varied from budget. The bottom line is that we are $906,620 better off than we projected. 2. Numbers from the House Tax Reform Bill. While we have no idea where State tax reform and expenditures will wind up, Gary Carlson of the League believes that the report on the House web site is the worst case. Rick Pribyl has reviewed this report and developed further interpretation. The big question is whether we will be able to use the additional LGA to reduce our use of fund balance or whether we must give it back to the taxpayers in the form of tax reduction. In any event, we have not budgeted additional LGA. 3. Ralph Messer's Proposed Rental License Fee Increases. We have budgeted a 10% increase worth about $4,500 in new revenue. Here is what it looks like as it applies to different sized rental complexes. We would need to do this quickly in order for it to be collected for next year's licenses. 4. Julie Jones' Memo on Recycling Fee Increases. While we have not yet budgeted additional increases, we would like to do so yet this year. Julie is recommending a 3% increase for 2002. This will enable us to cover all of our projected recycling costs. 5. Deb Dahl's Analysis of Health Insurance Costs. On this one, we need more time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Attachments N U C .� � � � U Q •F^•'+ W � � � � }^r' �H W 0 � � � �^` � W � U L X N N 'p C � -- � N � � � C C � � � W ti � N M N Cfl �{j �— t0 � N � 6F} ffl� E�} � � ti �' � 11') Cfl M I` � CO O M � � � � •L O M N > � c- � > � e- w- � � o � � CO �t N CO � � � � � � O �— � � � m E�} b�} N N � N � � � '� �^` �^` W W L.I.. W ti � M O � � 6F3 � a \ a� � c m m m v c � � � 0 a� N � 'O � N � � 7 m � c m m m � c � � 0 � N 3 N � Q 0 � M � � O � � Q U Q _ O J Q � .� y N L � C � Q U Q _ -�.. � J � � N � M M � � W � � 'a � Q � O — o � N Z .� Q J -� .3 � � � .O � � � N L � 0 � � M � M T LlJ � � V � � � Q�j C � � � � �--+ (� L L- �O � N V' � � .Q � a� � U � � "� � � � L � � -1-+ W � � � � U V '� � C '� '_ � � L � Q �� }' � � � L i-+ � N � � � U � � � � 3 Co _ � m W � � � � � V � �- N L � O � � � t� cn m � � ,� m � � 0 � o � �' U � � •� � � � Z �� � � � � � � 1' � W 0�0 M � � � � O M � � � � � � � ♦J � � m 0 N � � � m � 0 N N � L � W � O � � 0 � �t 00 � � � f� � � m � °o N 0 House Research Department Date: June 4, 2001 Property Tax changes due to changes in aids and credits under the 5/31/O1 House Proposal (based on the Governor/House/Senate Compromise Agreement) The attached run shows the net change in property taxes in each city due to the combined effects of: • The state education levy takeover; • The new state property tax; • The new state credits; • The net effect of city aid changes. A negative number indicates a decrease in property taxes while a positive number indicates an increase in property taxes paid by taxpayers in that city. Caveats: The run does not show the effects of any shifts in tax between properties due to the class rate changes nor does it reflect any increases in property tax refunds to low-income taxpayers under the expansion of that program. Because some of the changes affect only certain types of taxpayers while others affect all taxpayers in the jurisdiction, the table does not show the impact on an individual taxpayer (see Column 7 below). Columns in the table: Column 1: City population for 2000 from the U.S. Census. Column 2: Net decrease in school property taxes due to the takeovers of the general education levy and $310 per pupil of school referendum levy. Column 3: New state tax paid o� by businesses and seasonal-recreational property. Column 4: New homestead and agricultural credits which lower taxes o� for homes and farms. Column 5: The net effect on property taxes due to the elimination of city HACA and the increased funding of city LGA, assuming that cities levy back all lost aid (and reduce property taxes for any net increase in aid). Column 6: The total decrease (or increase) in property taYes paid by taxpayers in the city due to the combination of the changes in Columns 2 through 5. Column 7: The decrease in property taxes from Column 6 on a per capita basis. This number is useful for comparing the net effects between cities but it does not indicate the tax relief received by an individual taxpayer. Some of the changes, such as the education levy takeover and the city aid changes, will have an impact on all properties within the city but others, like the state tax and the homestead credit, will impact only taxes paid on certain types of properties. � -- ' ._ . __ House Research Run: totsav02 6/04/O1 County City ------ ------------------- Metro ANOKA ANDOVER ANOKA BETHEL BLAINE CENTERVILLE CIRCLE PINES COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COON RAPIOS EAST BETHEL FRIDLEY CITY HILLTOP LEXINGTON LINO LAKES OAK GROVE RAMSEY SPRING LFKE PARK ST FRANCIS PROPERTY TAX CHANGES FROM AIDS AND CREDITS UNDER 5/31 HOUSE PROPOSAL (BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT> Net change Net Change 2000 Educ. levy New State New in City Population Takeovers Prop. Tax Credits 2002 Aids (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- 26588 18076 443 44942 3202 4663 18520 61607 10941 27449 12710 766 2214 16791 6903 18510 6772 4910 -3638167 -2336023 -49172 -7292017 -653132 -601293 -130690 -8897392 -1104064 -4970574 -45864 -290279 3420051 -857890 2157889 -892162 -580987 586427 1769187 39835 4591739 113237 108238 814501 5650548 229410 4586845 48242 127517 697713 100218 1303629 614892 164895 County Total 286007 -40374381 22586570 CARVER CARVER CHANHASSEN CHASKA COLOGNE HAMBURG MAYER NEW GERMANY NORWOOD/YG AMERICP. VICTORIA WACONIA WATERTOWN County Total DAKOTA APPLE VALLEY BURNSVILLE COATES EAGAN FARMINGTON HAMPTON HASTIN6S INVER GROVE HGTS LAKEVILLE LILYDALE MENDOTA 1266 20321 17449 1012 538 554 346 3108 4025 6814 3029 58462 45527 60220 163 63557 12365 434 18204 29751 43128 552 197 -232307 -4788185 -2930831 -94788 -33170 -50502 -25785 -311938 -1271070 -1097785 -228341 22795 2638987 2529295 32285 10291 26810 11210 201297 111854 440659 76594 -2152463 -1060828 -32334 -3337344 -285907 -413164 -1478448 -4688393 -864022 -1863372 -1017383 -6219 -115387 -1276871 -584565 •1504632 -492054 -351287 -21524673 -127445 -:711034 -1081960 -93858 -42933 -41810 -31815 -216729 -357334 -571326 -188067 -11064702 6102082 -4464311 -8339084 2714533 '-3687921 -10455523 8359118 -4035491 -36954 25521 -12038 -17056556 10624941 -4727675 -1960380 508563 -1022931 -45216 15541 -33649 -2649837 1045029 -1284261 -4745317 2071492 -2133702 -9030700 2613766 -3214291 -221281 67226 -65820 -22663 18897 -14465 524942 687907 12922 2116524 141723 255325 983541 3099448 29786 -2260 481420 132671 646803 270572 161925 11398110 53343 1064163 175016 22292 48062 23913 23163 106197 190034 270388 58169 2039740 2774400 3332073 3041 2098017 513938 25594 1204967 1130093 1749190 7171 24612 Total Net Change in Prop.Tax (6=2+3+4+5) -4,679,251 -939,75i -28,7C9 -3,921,058 -684,0;4 -650,89d 188,904 -4,835,789 -1,485,943 -453,559 -2,620,984 25,945 -280,409 -3,517,789 -1,209,555 -1,722.0°9 -498.752 -505,454 27,915,374 -283,614 -2,791,069 -1,308,48G -134,059 -17,750 -41,589 -23.227 -221,173 -1,326,511 -958,064 -281,545 -7,387,151 -6,538,072 -2.799.823 -20,430 - -9,061,2'3 -1,950,8?0 -37,73G -1,684,1G2 -3,677,434 -7,882,035 -212,704 6,381 County List page 1 Total Net Change Per Capita (7=6/1) -175.99 -51.99 -64.90 -87.25 -213.64 -139.59 10.20 -78.49 -135.82 -16.52 -206.21 33.87 -126.65 -209.50 -175.22 -93.04 -73.65 -123.31 -97.62 -224.02 -137.35 -74.99 -132.48 -32.99 -75.07 -67.1? -71.15 -329.57 -140.60 -92.98 126.36 -143.61 -46.49 -125.33 -142.57 -158.58 -86.94 -92.51 -123.61 -182.76 •385.33 32.39 Burns, Bill From: Messer, Ralph Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 4:55 PM To: Bums, Bili; Pribyl, Rick Cc: McKusick, Chuck Subject: Rental License Fee Increases Here is the proposed amendment to City Code Chapter 11 to accomplish the increased residential rental property license fees as requested. Generally, the renewals are sent out the first week in July. Licenses expire August 31. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY LICENSE FEES The City Council of the City of Fridley hereby finds, after review, examination and recommendation of sta� that the current Chapter 11, Fee Schedule, of the Fridley City Code, pertaining to Chapter 220, Residential Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing Code, to be ina.dequate to meet the costs required for the inspection under the Municipal Code and hereby ordains the fee schedule be amended as follows: Chapter 220 - Multiple Dwelling Single rental unit � $27.50 Two rental units �-SA $55 _ Ttiree units �-S $82.50 Four units �8A $110 Five or more units ��AA $110 plus �5 $5.50 per unit Reinspection Fee �6A $66 Transfer Fee $25.00 License Fee after revocation or suspension 150% times the annual license fee PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 2001. - Scott J. Lund, Mayor Attest: Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk emoran um Planning Division DATE: June 7, 2001 TO: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator FROM: Julie Jones, Environmental Planner SUBJECT: SWAP Fee Increase Background - At a recent Council work session meeting, I informed the City Council that I indicated that we need to increase our SWAP (Solid Waste Abatement Program, i.e. Recycling) Fee in 2002. The need for an increase is a result of a 1.5% curbside recycling contract cost increase. Even though the rate is only slightly increasing, the recycling contract cost accounts for about 70% of our budget. Therefore, only a slight increase has a significant impact on our SWAP budget. The Council's concern was that if a large increase was needed, then we should implement a fee increase this year, as well. However, after analyzing the 2002 proposed SWAP budget in more detail, I do not recommend an increase in the SWAP fee this year. Besides the curbside recycling contract, the only other significant SWAP budget increase in 2002 stems from the implementation of recycling in our largest City Parks (East Moore Lake, Little League Fields, and Community Park). This is a State Law requirement that has been ignored the past few years. These two cost increases combined amount to a$6,371 increase in expenses. Divided by the 9,005 customers currently getting billed the SWAP fee, this equals an $.18/quarter increase per dwelling unit. This equals about a 3% increase. A$2.50/quarter SWAP fee was instituted in 1992 for single-family units and in 1993 for multiple units. In 1997, we raised the SWAP fee from $4.00/quarter to $6.00/quarter. In 1999, the City reduced the quarterly SWAP fee to $5.50, because our costs decreased significantly after closure of the Recycling Center in January 1999. Recommendation I would recommend a 3% increase in the SWAP fee in 2002, effective January 2002. The City Council will be considering changes to Section 113 of City Code later this year. These changes propose to take the setting of the SWAP fee out of the code and authorize the City Council to set the fee by resolution, like they do for water and sewer rates. Considering the new tax increase limitations (currently 4.2%), staff believes that the City Council needs to consider an increase in the SWAP fee each year to make sure we keep the SWAP fund expenses balance with the revenues. M-01-71 � � � ClTY OF FRIDIEY MEMORANDUM Date: 8 June 2001 Memo to: City Council Bill Burns, City Manager . r From: Deborah K. Dahl, Director of Human Resources Deborah K. Dahl Director oj Human Resources (763) 572-3507 Subject: PROPOSED HEALTH INSURANCE INCREASES FOR 2002 The following information is to update you on the projected increases in health insurance for the 2002 budget along with the list of options staff will be considering during renewal. I will be available for questions at the 6/11/O1 budget work session. 1. The Cost Comp:tred to Current R1tes: Single Dependent TOTAL MONTHLY PREMIUMS PER EMPLOYEE Current $272.19 607.68 2002 $382.89 876.40 Difference $91.70 268.72 CITY CONTRIBUTION PER EE/PER MO. Single 274.00 364.00 90.00 Dependent 469.00 682.00 213.00 EMPLOYEE COSTS PER EE/PER MO. Single 0 0 0 Dependent 138.68 194.40 55.72 2. Explanation of Costs: The 2002 budget includes an increase in health insurance of $208,619, which includes: a. 44% increase in renewal rates ($163,808) b. Three new positions added to the budget with dependent coverage ($24,552) c. One employee mistakenly missed in 2001 budget ($8,184) d. Seven employees switched coverage ($12,000) e. High utilization of claims and prescriptions f. Market trend for medical inflation is running at 14-15% Overall Claims a. Claims are cunently running at 85% of projections (cunent rates forecasted to run at 75%). The frequency of claims have not changed, however, the claim severity has increased. b. Average monthly claim per employee has increased 28% c. More expensive procedures being done Hospitalization a. Hospitalization visits and claims expected to double from last year, if continued at the same pace b. Five big claims this year (more than $7,500) compared to one last year Dru s a. Participants are using more drugs, which accounts for 50% af total claims compared to 19% last year. b. 37% increase in cost of drugs per employee c. Increase in severity of procedures as well as high hospitalization drive drug costs up. Fewer Stoa Loss Carriers a. Stop Loss rates increase 20-30% due to fewer carriers in the market to share the risk and loss. Less competition, higher pricing. 3. Options Staff Will Be Considering a. Review plan language and revise benefit options (eliminate or limit some treatments, such as infertility, etc.) b. Change benefit levels, causing higher out-of-pocket expenses to employees --- — c. Increase deductibles d. Go to market for renewed stop loss rates e. Return to a fully-funded/pooled insurance plan f. Change employer contribution levels (80/20) 4. Next Step a. Explore options and costs b. Involve employees in decision-making process and to sharing ownership c. Renewal rates expected in early fall d. Return to Council with final costs and recommendations before the end of the year DKD